Competence, not Race Nor Gender

On January 28, 2008 I wrote the following in the midst of the heated rhetoric of the primary campaign. I warned of the potentially divisive nature of the upcoming campaign.

At the time, Hillary Clinton battled Barack Obama and others on the Democratic side, while John McCain traded barbs and sound bytes with a wide cast of characters, including Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and more. Clearly it was shaping up to be much more than a simple exercise in a typical partisan race. 

The general trend has been to laud the theory that in the U.S. neither race nor gender should make a difference in electing a candidate to office. It does, though, just as economics "cleans up" cities like New York and others.  

With the general election a mere two weeks hence, it is a perfect time to emphasize again what Alexander Hamilton suggested in his Federalist Papers (number 68):

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."

Did America heed Hamilton's sage advice? Hardly.

The Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, of course, immediately lashed out at the alleged incompetence of his nearly thirty year junior,

Senator Barack Obama.Obama, in turn, responded, tying McCain's long tenure in the Senate to the failing eight year administration of George W. Bush.

Obama's philosophy, rather than his acknowledged lack of experience, made him the Senate's most liberal member.

As the sound bytes intensified, it became increasingly clear that Hamilton's call for "requisite qualifications" in a candidate for the Presidency were sorely lacking in both men.

Despite his quarter century of experience amassed in the Senate, John McCain and his handlers conveniently downplayed his disastrous role in the scandalous "Keating 5" savings and loan affair. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, it cot the American taxpayer billions of dollars back then. For his part, McCain was merely slapped on the wrist at that time by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment."

We generally accept the foibles of current political candidates. However, this downplayed event called into question the idea of competence far more than it would have, were the country not involved in the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

A person of the foremost integrity and knowledge is required.

Instead, the Republican Senator from Arizona, clearly pandering to the alleged female vote, chose a singularly unqualified woman, Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, to be his running mate. That choice by itself might be as inconsequential as Dan Quayle was to George H.W. Bush.Unfortunately, Governor Palin's lack of sophistication and mere cursory knowledge of international politics will undoubtedly come back to haunt McCain's choice, whether he wins the Presidency or not.

It so clearly points out Hamilton's warning against the "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity..." Already the voters' negative reaction to McCain' choice of running mate are visibly felt. They would be far less so were Senator McCain not as advanced in age, and were she not merely that single heartbeat away .The mere thought of a President Palin in the Oval Office would make Alexander Hamilton turn over in Trinity Churchyard.

Competence? Should we demand anything less?

Should we not subject the candidates to such an impartial standard, rather than let race, gender or religious affiliation - or even media-driven popularity - decide for us?

At least, Senator Obama had the good sense to surround himself with solid, proven backers. Despite his relative youth, he has the support of former President Bill Clinton and wife Hillary, of the ailing Senator Ted Kennedy, of billionaire Warrant Buffet among a long list of supporters. 

There will be those, of course, who will simply vote against Obama because of his race.

Others will vote for the aging McCain due to his status as a genuine victim of the disastrous VietNam war. 

There will those will ignore the ignorance and verbal gaffes of McCain's running mate. 

No matter who wins the race for Preidency, we will all pay the price of failing to heeding Hamilton's call for competence. 

I remain tied to principle. Rather than choose the least offensive choice, I shall vote for the most consistent and reliable, intelligent and consistent  third-party candidate.